New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday, January 31, agreed to urgently list for urgent hearing a former Rajya Sabha MP’s plea seeking contempt action against top Haryana government officials in the backdrop of Friday namaz disruptions by Hindutva groups in Gurugram.
A bench comprising Chief Justice N.V. Ramana and Justices A.S. Bopanna and Hima Kohli took note of the submissions of senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for former MP Mohammad Adeeb, and said state government officials have not been following the 2018 apex court judgment issuing a slew of directions to stop hate crimes.
“This is not only based on newspaper reports, we have ourselves filed complaints. We are not asking for any enforcement of FIR. This court has laid down preventive measures,” the senior lawyer said.
“I will look into it and post before the appropriate bench immediately,” the CJI said.
LiveLaw has reported that Adeeb’s petition submitted that in recent months, there has been a constant rise in incidents around Friday prayers offered by Muslims. These incidents, he said, took place at the behest of certain “identifiable hooligans, who portray themselves falsely in the name of religion and seek to create an atmosphere of hatred and prejudice against one community across the city.”
As The Wire has reported, Hindutva groups have been disrupting Muslims’ Friday prayers are spots which had earlier been demarcated by the administration itself. As the disruptions grew increasingly charged, Haryana chief minister M.L. Khattar announced the withdrawal of the earlier agreement which permitted Muslims to offer Friday prayers on government-allocated land in late 2021.
“This nefarious design being given effect to by propagation and dissemination of hateful content through social media platforms spreading false narratives, terming the performance of Friday Namaz, which is being done in the open due to compulsion and the same is permitted by the appropriate authorities in the circumstances as being illegal and in a manner of some sort of encroachment,” the plea states.
Adeeb has filed a contempt plea seeking action against Haryana’s chief secretary, IAS officer Sanjeev Kaushal, and the director general of police, IPS officer P.K. Agrawal.
“While a considerable number of police forces were present [in an incident on December 3] despite the same videos emerged clearly showing such persons as having no fear of law. The police reportedly detained some persons from the mob, but the same were subsequently let off the same day,” the plea stated, according to LiveLaw.
Meanwhile, shortly after Adeeb moved Supreme Court, Haryana police lodged an FIR against him and others on an alleged complaint filed by local Hindu activists accusing them of “disrupting communal harmony and trying to grab land.”
“The FIR has been lodged against Adeeb, Abdul Haseeb Kashmi and Mufti Mohammad Salim Kashmi at Sector 40 police station under sections 153 (wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot) and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code,” officials told PTI.
Adeeb’s petition also states that top Haryana officials have not complied with an earlier judgment passed by the apex court’s on Tehseen Poonawalla’s plea.
In 2018, the apex court issued guidelines to the Union government and states, asking them to take steps such as fast-tracking trials, victim compensation, deterrent punishment and disciplinary action against lax law-enforcing officials.
One guideline said states shall designate a senior police officer not below the rank of police superintendent as the nodal officer in each district. These officers will set up a task force to be assisted by one DSP-rank officer for taking measures to prevent mob violence and lynching.
The task force will gather intelligence reports on people likely to commit such crimes or who are involved in spreading hate speeches, provocative statements and fake news, it had said.
The state governments shall immediately identify districts, sub-divisions and villages where instances of lynching and mob violence have been reported in the recent past, it had said.
(With PTI inputs)